Fisheries committee  I would like to agree with that last statement. I think one reason we've had a Fisheries Act that has not maintained a sustainable fishery is ministerial discretion, which sometimes has had terrible consequences. I've seen environmental impact statements where the proponent's own EIA, environmental impact assessment, said they would be doing major damage to fisheries, and DFO's assessment said that, but when it came down to the final approval, the minister wrote off on the thing and approved it.

Fisheries committee  I would think the obvious answer to that is that this is what regulations are for. Regulations are commonly tailored to individual fisheries and areas. I don't see a problem with one overreaching act, if the regulations are tailored to the problems of specific regions, as the witness from Nunavut suggested.

Fisheries committee  That's what the math would say. They're proposing 100,000 to 130,000 megawatts of additional power generation between now and 2050. That would be three to four large dams per year. I don't think it can happen. My recommendation would be that this plan needs to be revisited.

Fisheries committee  Yes, I think the separation of the two under the fisheries research board, which did science to best support Canadian fisheries and was entirely governed by a board of senior fisheries and freshwater and oceanographic scientists, produced very good science. That was then handed off to the departments as a piece of science, and that was incorporated into the decisions.

Fisheries committee  I don't have any direct experience with that. I expect it was probably the same thing that we experienced at all fishery stations. Problems were multiplying, and the number of staff expected to handle them was going down.

Fisheries committee  It's pretty clear that they reduced the protections for fish habitat.

Fisheries committee  I don't think, however, to date, you would expect to see any effect. One of the reasons was mentioned earlier. If you don't have people in the field to observe, you're not going to see any effect by definition. Number two is that only a few years have gone by. Most large projects require several years to develop, and if they're bad projects, they probably require several more to have an effect on fisheries.

Fisheries committee  My mind is that the science should be done with strictly scientific oversight and the science passed on to the minister, so that it's crystal clear where and why the decisions are made. Certainly, the elected minister should have the final oversight, but the taxpayer should be sure of where the decision is coming from.

Fisheries committee  I would say that if a man-made habitat proves to be equal to the natural habitat, and in my experience it's often permitted by at least the old Fisheries Act as a replacement for habitat that cannot be otherwise restored, such as in the dewatering of lakes, then it should be permitted.

Fisheries committee  It would be better if this were all done under one agency.

Fisheries committee  I think it's fair to say that a strengthened science department could also be given the responsibility for monitoring Canada's fisheries which, frankly, are a mess right now, as recent experience on the Athabasca River shows clearly. Monitoring now is done by a hodgepodge of consultants and provincial agencies, many of them using outdated methods and with incoherent plans—

Fisheries committee  Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the House committee. It is a pleasure to appear before you today. My experience with fisheries in Canada has spanned almost 50 years, roughly half as a university professor and the other half as a member of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or its predecessor, the Fisheries Research Board of Canada.

Fisheries committee  Can you hear me now?